FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ......Final Report 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED This...

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR CONVERSION OF VEHICLE BARRIERS

TO LANDING MAT FENCE

NACO, ARIZONA

October 2002

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICEWASHINGTON, D.C.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for

Conversion of Vehicle Barriers to Landing Mat Fence Naco, Cochise County, Arizona

October 2002

Lead Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service

Headquarters Facilities and Engineering 425 I Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20536

Responsible Official: Mr. Charles Parsons

Regional Environmental Officer INS Western Region

24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

Fax 949-360-2985

Prepared By: Gulf South Research Corporation

P.O. Box 83564 Baton Rouge, LA 70884

Naco Fence EA October 2002 Final Report ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed action is to convert 1.2 miles of vehicle barriers east of Naco, Arizona into landing mat fence.

PURPOSE AND NEED: Vehicle barriers along the Naco corridor, which were constructed under a previous EA, have proven to be effective in stopping illegal vehicle traffic in this area. However, the barriers have done nothing to impede the continuing influx of illegal foot traffic, including migrants and smugglers. Because of the nearby road network, undocumented aliens can easily escape into the United States once they have successfully breached this portion of the boundary. Thus, there is a need to convert the 1.2 miles of existing vehicle barriers east of the Naco port-of-entry into landing mat fence. The purpose is to create a structure that would halt or substantially hinder illegal foot traffic in areas that provide easy escape routes for illegal entrants.

ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED:

The No Action Alternative would not allow the construction of the 1.2 miles of landing mat fence. The Preferred Alternative would allow the conversion of 1.2 miles of existing vehicle barriers with 10-foot support poles into landing mat fence with little or no additional ground disturbance. Other alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion include using various types of materials to construct the 1.2 miles of fence.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:

The Preferred Alternative would involve minimal construction activities within an area that has been previously disturbed. No significant adverse effects to air quality, water quality, cultural resources, unique areas, soils, protected species, or land use are expected. Site-specific surveys for sensitive resources and coordination with the appropriate Federal and state agencies by Joint Task Force Six have provided assurances that the proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the human or natural environment.

CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this analysis and assuming that all mitigation measures recommended herein are implemented, no significant adverse impacts would occur from the Preferred Alternative.

Naco Fence EA October 2002 Final Report iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED................................................1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 INS Organization...................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 Naco Station .........................................................................................1-3 1.1.3 Regulatory Authority .............................................................................1-3 1.2 Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................1-4 1.3 Location of the Proposed Action.......................................................................1-5 1.4 Report Organization .........................................................................................1-5 2.0 ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 No Action Alternatives ......................................................................................2-1 2.2 The Preferred Alternative – Landing Mat Fence ...............................................2-1 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation ......................2-2 2.3.1 Conventional Fence Alternative ............................................................2-4 2.3.2 Specialty Fence Alternative...................................................................2-4 2.4 Summary..........................................................................................................2-6 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................3-1 3.1 Land Use..........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Mining Operations.................................................................................3-1 3.2 Soils and Prime Farmland ................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Soils......................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1.1 Hydric Soils ...............................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Prime Farmland ....................................................................................3-2 3.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Wildlife Communities ........................................................................................3-3 3.5 Unique or Sensitive Areas ................................................................................3-4 3.6 Protected Species and Critical Habitats............................................................3-4 3.6.1 Federal .................................................................................................3-6 3.6.2 Critical Habitat .................................................................................... 3-10 3.6.3 State ................................................................................................... 3-10 3.7 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 3-11 3.8 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3-11 3.9 Water Resources............................................................................................ 3-13 3.9.1 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands ........................................................ 3-13 3.10 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-14 3.11 Noise.............................................................................................................. 3-14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........................................................4-1 4.1 Land Use..........................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-1 4.2 Soils and Prime Farmland ................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-1 4.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................4-2 4.3.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-2 4.3.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-2

Naco Fence EA October 2002 Final Report iv

4.4 Wildlife .............................................................................................................4-3 4.4.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-3 4.4.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-3 4.5 Unique or Sensitive Areas ................................................................................4-3 4.6 Protected Species and Critical Habitats............................................................4-3 4.6.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-3 4.6.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-3 4.7 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................4-4 4.7.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-4 4.7.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-4 4.8 Air Quality.........................................................................................................4-5 4.8.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-5 4.8.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-5 4.9 Water Resources..............................................................................................4-5 4.9.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-5 4.9.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-5 4.10 Socioeconomics ...............................................................................................4-5 4.10.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-5 4.10.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-6 4.10.3 Environmental Justice...........................................................................4-6 4.11 Noise Effects ....................................................................................................4-7 4.11.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-7 4.11.2 Preferred Alternative .............................................................................4-7 4.12 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................4-8 4.12.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................4-8 4.12.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................... 4-11 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES.......................................................5-1 5.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................................5-1 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................6-1 6.1 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................6-1 6.2 Public Review ..................................................................................................6-1 6.3 Comments and Responses ..............................................................................6-3 7.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................7-1 8.0 ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................8-1 9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................9-1

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 6-1: Notice of Availability ..................................................................................6-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Existing Infrastructure East of Naco POE...................................................1-6

Naco Fence EA October 2002 Final Report v

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Landing mat fence ................................................................................2-1 Photograph 2: 0.2 mile of low vehicle barriers..............................................................2-3 Photograph 3: Trenching for vehicle barriers with vertical support poles ......................2-3 Photograph 4: Existing vehicle barriers with 10’ vertical support poles........................ 2-3 Photograph 5: Bollard style fence................................................................................ 2-4 Photograph 6: Sandia style fence ................................................................................ 2-5 Photograph 7: Picket style fence..................................................................................2-5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Alternative Matrix ........................................................................................2-6 Table 2-2: Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts ..........................................................2-7 Table 3-1: Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species Potentially Occurring within Cochise County, Arizona ........................................................................3-7 Table 3-2: National Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................... 3-12

SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Naco Fence EA October 2002 Final Report 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

This Final Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential for effects, beneficial

and adverse, of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S. Border Patrol

(USBP) proposed fence construction activities within the USBP Naco Station area of

operation (AO). This EA evaluates the conversion of 1.2 miles of existing vehicle barriers

to landing mat fence as part of the INS and USBP infrastructure projects within the Naco

AO. This EA is tiered from two documents: the Final Environmental Assessment for

Infrastructure within U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, Arizona

(INS 2000) and the Final Environmental Assessment for Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6)

Proposed Fence and Road Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona

(USACE 2000).

This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of 1969, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for the

Implementation of the NEPA, as well as the INS’s Procedures for Implementing NEPA

(28 CFR 61).

1.1 Background

1.1.1 INS Organization

The INS has the responsibility to regulate and control immigration into the United States.

In 1924, the U.S. Congress created the USBP to be the law enforcement arm of the INS.

The USBP’s primary function is to detect and deter the unlawful entry of undocumented

aliens (UDAs) and smuggling along the United States’ land borders and between the

ports-of-entry (POE). With the increase in illegal drug trafficking, the USBP also has

become the leader for drug interdiction between land POEs. Since 1980, an average of

150,000 immigrants have been naturalized every year. At the same time, however, illegal

aliens have become a significant issue. Apprehension rates for INS are currently

averaging more than 1.5 million illegal aliens throughout the country. At present, the INS

estimates that there are seven to nine million illegal aliens in the United States. Other

studies have indicated higher numbers, closer to 10 million.


The INS has reported that the U.S.-Mexico border is breached more than any other

international border in the world. It is a large, diverse, and difficult boundary to effectively

enforce without the use of dedicated tactical infrastructure (fences, lights, roads,

cameras, etc.).

Prior to the early 1990s, there was less awareness of southwest border issues and less

national attention was given to illegal trans-boundary activity than is currently

attributable. As a result, the USBP’s growth was nominal, funding for enforcement efforts

fell short, and the USBP functioned under severe constraints. Events over the last

decade, however, related to illegal immigration and narcotics smuggling have increased

the nation’s awareness and generated substantial interest in controlling the U.S.-Mexico

border. This has resulted in increased funding and staffing, and has also created new

opportunities in the development of proactive border control strategies as demonstrated

in patrol and enforcement operations throughout the southwest border area (e.g.,

Operations Gatekeeper, Hold-the-Line, Safeguard, and Rio Grande).

The anti-terrorism role of the INS has always been an important function to the agency;

however, since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, this role

has been increased and is now more important than ever. This increased function to

fight terrorism requires more vigilance at the POEs and all areas along the borders. All

enforcement activities and subsequent infrastructure and technological improvements,

such as roads, fencing, remote video surveillance (RVS) systems, and lighting, are

necessary elements in securing our borders from illegal entry.

Past enforcement strategies were reactive, and because little emphasis was placed on

deterring illegal crossing, it diminished the importance of infrastructure (e.g., lights and

fences) along the U.S.-Mexico border. Instead, the USBP’s efforts focused primarily on

making apprehensions after the international boundary was breached. This strategy

utilized the “element of surprise” by deploying their limited resources away from the

border in concealed positions. However, as illicit trafficking continued to increase, the

area that the USBP was required to patrol also increased. The USBP’s inability to deter

or contain illegal migration at the border resulted in an increase in the geographic

footprint, and subsequent environmental impacts, of illegal migration patterns.


During recent years, the USBP has significantly increased its emphasis on deterrence.

Deterrence is achieved only when the USBP has the ability to create and convey the

immediate, credible, and absolute certainty of detection and apprehension. As such,

tactical infrastructure components, such as fences, are a critical element in the current

enforcement strategy. Developing trends such as the continued urbanization and

industrialization of the immediate border, the recognition of environmental preservation

concerns, and the increase of criminal trans-boundary activities (including trafficking in

people and drugs and terrorist acts) continue to pose a border enforcement challenge

and compound the need for tactical infrastructure.

1.1.2 Naco Station

The Naco Station AO is located within Cochise County and covers approximately 1,600

square miles. The station AO includes 30 miles of the international border and the towns

of Naco, Bisbee, Tombstone, Sierra Vista, Warren, Hereford, Palominas, and Huachuca.

There are currently 224 USBP agents assigned to the station. The geographical terrain

of the area is desert with rolling hills covered with brush thickets and numerous north-

south trending washes. The approximate elevation of the station is 4,800 feet above

mean sea level (msl).

1.1.3 Regulatory Authority

The primary sources of authority granted to officers of the INS are the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA), found in Title 8 of the United States Code (USC), and other

statutes relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens. Secondary sources of

authority are administrative regulations implementing those statutes, primarily those

found in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR Section 287), judicial

decisions, and administrative decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals. In addition,

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) mandates INS

to acquire and/or improve equipment and technology along the border, hire and train

new agents for the border region, and develop effective border enforcement strategies.

Subject to constitutional limitations, INS officers may exercise the authority granted to

them in the INA. The statutory provisions related to enforcement authority are found in

Sections 287(a), 287(b), 287(c), and 287(e) [8 USC § 1357(a,b,c,e)]; Section 235(a) [8

USC § 1225]; Sections 274(b) and 274(c) [8 USC § 1324(b,c)]; Section 274(a) [8 USC §


1324(a)]; and Section 274(c) [8 USC § 1324(c)] of the INA. Other statutory sources of

authority are Title 18 of the United States Code (18 USC), which has several provisions

that specifically relate to enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws; Title 19 [19

USC § 1401(i)], relating to U.S. Customs Service cross-designation of INS officers; and

Title 21 [21 USC § 878], relating to Drug Enforcement Agency cross-designation of INS

officers.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The combination of sound infrastructure (e.g., roads, fences, barriers, and technological

components) and adequate resources (e.g., vehicles, field agents, support personnel,

etc.) is essential for the effective enforcement of the border strategy and integral to the

success of the USBP to gain, maintain, and extend control of the border.

Border fences have proven to be an effective deterrent in numerous areas (e.g., San

Diego, Naco, Nogales, and Tecate), even though a single fence can be breached, since

USBP agents cannot protect the south side of the fence. In fact, UDA apprehensions in

the Naco AO have fallen from 113,287 in fiscal year 2000 to 36,900 by May 2002.

Fences are typically constructed in urban or developed areas, particularly around legal

POEs. Military surplus steel landing mat fences have been the type of fence most

commonly constructed along the border. However, numerous other styles, including

bollard, Sandia, and steel picket fences, have also been used. These fences are

generally 10-14 feet high and usually constructed within six feet of the U.S.-Mexico

border. Fence designs can vary depending upon the presence of other natural or man-

made physical barriers, local terrain, and the USBP’s enforcement strategy.

Vehicle barriers typically consist of 4- to 5-inch diameter metal pipe approximately three

feet high to prevent vehicles from crossing the border at selected areas. They are

usually constructed along the southern edge of existing roads, particularly roads that are

adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. As the name implies, vehicle barriers are designed

to impede illegal vehicle entry; however, they do not preclude pedestrian or wildlife

movement.


The vehicle barriers, which were addressed under a previous EA (USACE 2000), have

proven to be effective in stopping illegal vehicle traffic along the 1.2-mile corridor.

However, the barriers have done nothing to impede the continuing influx of illegal foot

traffic, including migrants and smugglers. Because of the nearby road network, UDAs

can easily escape into the United States once they have successfully breached this

portion of the border. Thus, there is a need to convert 1.2 miles of existing vehicle

barriers east of the Naco POE into landing mat fence. The purpose is to create a

structure that would halt or substantially hinder illegal foot traffic in areas that provide

easy escape routes for illegal entrants.

1.3 Location of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is located in Cochise County near the town of Naco, Arizona

approximately 100 miles southeast of Tucson. Naco is located on the U.S.-Mexico border

across from Naco, Sonora, Mexico, and is a legal POE. Currently, about 2.3 miles of

various infrastructure have been built along the border east of the Naco POE (Figure 1-1).

The proposed action would take place along the eastern-most 1.2-mile section shown in

Figure 1-1.

1.4 Report Organization

This report is organized into nine major sections including this introduction with the

description of the purpose, need, and location of the proposed project. Section 2.0

describes all alternatives considered for the project. Section 3.0 discusses the

environmental features potentially affected by the project, while Section 4.0 discusses

the environmental consequences for each of the viable alternatives. Mitigation measures

are discussed in Section 5.0 and public involvement is addressed in Section 6.0.

Sections 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 present a list of the references cited in the document, a list of

acronyms and abbreviations, and a list of the persons involved in the preparation of this

document, respectively. Appendix A includes supporting documents of the public

involvement program, such as the notice of availability and public comment letters. Other

supporting documents can be found in the Environmental Assessment completed for

U.S. Border Patrol’s Infrastructure along the Naco-Douglas Corridor in Cochise County,

Arizona (INS 2000) and the Environmental Assessment for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and

Road Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000).

SECTION 2.0ALTERNATIVES


Photograph 1. Landing mat fence

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of this section is to describe the alternatives that were considered during

the preparation of the EA, relative to their ability to satisfy the purpose and need. Cost

and maintenance requirements were also considered in the selection of alternatives.

Four alternatives will be addressed: (1) No Action Alternative; (2) Preferred Alternative;

(3) Conventional Fence Alternative; and (4) Specialty Fence Alternative. Each of these

alternatives is discussed below.

2.1 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would require leaving the vehicle barriers in place and not

continuing the landing mat fence for 1.2 miles. While border vehicle barriers have proven

to be an effective deterrent in illegal vehicular drive-throughs, they do not deter illegal

immigrants from climbing over or under them. The No Action Alternative would not

provide an increased deterrence of illegal foot entry nor expand the window of

opportunity for USBP agents to detect illegal entry attempts.

2.2 The Preferred Alternative – Landing Mat Fence

The Preferred Alternative is to construct approximately 1.2 miles of steel landing mat

panel fencing (Photograph 1) along the

existing vehicle barriers east of Naco,

Arizona. The proposed fence would start

where the vehicle barriers with tall vertical

supports begin (approximately 0.2 mile

east of the existing landing mat fence)

and continue east 1.2 miles. An existing

border road is adjacent to and parallel

with the vehicle barrier and would be

used during the construction for the

landing mat fence. Thus, no new roads or

road upgrades would be required for the proposed action. The 0.2-mile section located

between the end of the existing landing mat fence and beginning of the proposed


landing mat fence is a small drainage area (see Figure 1-1). This area currently has low

vehicle barriers (Photograph 2). If fencing were to be erected in this area, it would most

likely be a bollard style fence to allow water to flow and would require a separate NEPA

document.

Currently, of the 1.2 miles of proposed landing mat fence, 1.0 mile has the vertical

supports in place while the remaining 0.2 mile of supports have not yet been

constructed. Trenches (Photograph 3) for placement of the support barriers are in place

and the work is expected to be completed in the near future. The trenching and

installation of the vertical support barriers was covered under a previous NEPA

document (USACE 2000).

The proposed steel landing mat fence would be constructed with surplus military

supplies similar to the existing fence adjacent to the POE at a cost of approximately

$5,000 per mile. The fence would be erected to approximately 10 feet of height during

the initial construction phase. It is also the USBP’s intent to add an approximate 5-foot

vertical, expanded wire mesh panel extension to the top of the fence in the future. Each

landing mat panel would be welded to the next to form a solid fence. The landing mat

panels would be joined directly to the vehicle barriers; thus, very little, if any, additional

ground disturbance would be required. Vertical support poles (Photograph 4) at a height

of 10 feet are currently in place to provide additional support for the landing mat fence;

however, additional support poles, if needed, would be installed using an auger and the

holes would be grouted with concrete. This alternative would substantially impede illegal

foot and vehicle traffic within the area with minimal cost and environmental impacts.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation

Other types of fencing materials/fence designs were considered during the preparation

of this EA. However, since they did not satisfy the purpose and need to provide a

substantial barrier to illegal foot traffic or were too costly or time consuming to install or

maintain, these alternative designs were eliminated from further consideration. Two

major categories of fences (i.e., conventional and specialty) were considered, as

described below.


Photograph 3

Trenching for vehicle barriers with vertical support poles

Photograph 4 Existing vehicle barriers with

10’ vertical support poles

Photograph 2 0.2 mile of low vehicle barrier


2.3.1 Conventional Fence Alternative

Conventional fence building materials, such as barbed wire and chain link, have been

considered by the USBP. These materials are not excessively expensive when

compared to the specialty fences described below, but still cost a great deal more than

the landing mat option. In addition, these materials are not considered to be as effective

as landing mat panels in satisfying the purpose and need. Chain link fencing costs

approximately $130,000 per mile and requires a high level of maintenance, and is not

resistant to cutting or vandalism. Barbed wire fencing would be the least effective and is

easily traversed without the necessity of cutting the fence, although the cost is

approximately $40,000 per mile. Although fences built from these materials may offer

some level of deterrence to illegal entrance, they would require constant maintenance

due to the effects of vandalism and exposure to the elements. Furthermore, the

environmental impacts from the construction of these types of fences would be similar to

those produced by construction of a landing mat panel fence. Additionally, landing mat

panel fences would require less maintenance and as a result, less maintenance impacts

and costs. Thus, these designs were eliminated from further consideration.

2.3.2 Specialty Fence Alternative

The bollard fence (Photograph 5) consists of a double row of 10- to 15-foot high steel

pipe poles, approximately six inches in diameter, placed on 8.5-inch centers. The pipes

would be filled with concrete for added strength and security. The two rows are offset,

such that the gaps between the poles would be filled by the poles of the other row. A

concrete footer is required to anchor the poles – approximately 20 inches wide and three

feet deep. This type of fence is

normally only used in areas with

flowing water that would damage

other types of fences. It is the most

expensive to construct, costing

approximately $1,000,000 per mile.

Therefore, this type of fence was

eliminated from further

consideration for this 1.2-mile

project area.

Photograph 5 Bollard style fence


Sandia fences (Photograph 6)

have been used in other areas

along the border. The current

standard design consists of

vertical secura metal mesh panels

attached to 16- foot steel poles.

Additional 6-foot panels are

secured to the top panels at an

angle of 45 degrees toward the

south. The poles would be

anchored to a 12-inch wide by 4-

foot deep concrete footing that runs the length of the proposed fence. Generally, this

type of fence has been used as a secondary fence behind the landing mat panel fence

or in maximum-security situations because of the high construction costs (approximately

$200,000/mile) and high maintenance costs if subjected to vandalism. The

environmental impacts from construction of this type of fence are greater than the

preferred landing mat panel fence due to the required ground disturbance; therefore this

design was eliminated from further consideration.

Decorative picket style fences

(Photograph 7) have been

used (e.g., near the Douglas

POE). The intended use of

picket fences is for aesthetic

reasons rather than structural

or cost effectiveness. This

fence has only been used in

an urban setting due to the

high cost of construction

(approximately $200,000/mile)

and the relative low durability

of this design. Environmental impacts resulting from construction of this type of fence

would be greater than the Preferred Alternative since the picket fence could not be

Photograph 6 Sandia style fence

Photograph 7 Picket style fence


applied directly to the vehicle barrier and additional ground disturbance would be

required.

2.4 Summary

Two alternatives were carried forward for analysis: No Action Alternative and Preferred

Alternative. Other fence designs were considered but eliminated due to operational or

cost constraints. A summary of the alternatives, in comparison to the purpose and need

for the action, is presented in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Alternative Matrix

Fence Purpose and Need Requirements

No Action Landing

Mat Fence

Chain Link

Barbed wire

Specialty

Effective in deterring foot traffic from illegal migrants and drug smugglers

No Yes Maybe No Yes

Reduce number of easy escape routes for illegal entrants

No Yes No No Yes

Prevent vehicular drive-throughs Yes Yes Maybe No Yes

Cost per mile NA $5,000 $130,000 $40,000 $200,000+

Due to the disturbed nature of the project corridor and the fact that the vehicle barrier is

already in place, negligible impacts to the human and natural environment would occur

as a result of the Preferred Alternative (Table 2-2). Conversion of the vehicle barrier to

landing mat fence would have an effect on migration patterns of larger mammals;

however, these effects are also considered to be insignificant since the surrounding area

does not support expansive populations of large mammals that would be susceptible to

slight, long-term shifts in genetic variability.


Table 2-2: Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts

Affected Environment No Action Alternative Preferred Alternative – Landing Mat Fence

Land Use No impacts Land use would remain the same as it is now

Soils and Prime Farmlands No impacts No additional soil disturbance would be required

Vegetation UDA foot traffic would continue to disturb vegetation in the project region

The project site has been previously disturbed and essentially void of vegetation

Wildlife Communities

UDA foot traffic would continue to disturb wildlife species and their habitats in the project region

Proposed project could interfere with wildlife migration patterns; however, the project area is highly disturbed and not suitable for wildlife species that would be most affected by fence

Unique and Sensitive Areas No impacts No impacts

Protected Species and Critical Habitat

UDA foot traffic would continue to disturb protected species and designated critical habitats in the project region

No protected species were observed within the project site; there are no designated critical habitats within the project site

Cultural Resources No impacts

No additional ground disturbance would be required; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources

Air Quality No impacts

Short-term increase in emissions from equipment required for proposed project; any increase is expected to be temporary

Water Resources No Impacts No impacts

Socioeconomics

Continued UDA and drug smuggling foot traffic in urban/developed areas near the POE

Improved socioeconomics in surrounding communities due to less UDA and drug smuggling activities

Noise No additional impacts

Short-term increase in noise from equipment required for proposed project; any increase is expected to be temporary

SECTION 3.0AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Land Use

The total area of Cochise County is 6,170 square miles. The 2000 census estimated the

population at 117,755, with a population density of 19.1 persons per square mile (U.S.

Census Bureau 2001). The largest land use category for the county is in the private and

corporate ownership (42%). The principal land use outside the urban areas is rangeland

and agriculture (cotton, alfalfa, barley, corn, and vegetables). The Federal government

controls approximately 841,000 acres (21%), with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

managing approximately 490,000 acres (12%) of the land in the county. The majority of

the USFS land is the multiple-use Coronado National Forest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) manages the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge within Cochise

County. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 350,000 acres

(9%). The BLM land includes the Chiricahua National Monument, the San Pedro

Riparian National Conservation Area, and numerous multiple use areas used primarily

for grazing. The State of Arizona manages approximately 1,368,000 acres (34%), which

is primarily maintained for recreation, historical, and natural uses.

The project region has three small to medium sized urban areas. According to the U.S.

Census Bureau (2001), the primary urban areas and their 2000 populations are: Douglas

(14,312), Bisbee (6,090), and Naco (833). More detailed information regarding land use

in the project region can be found in the EA completed for USBP’s infrastructure along

the Naco-Douglas corridor in Cochise County, Arizona (INS 2000) and the EA for JTF-6

Proposed Fence and Road Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona

(USACE 2000), and is incorporated herein by reference.

3.1.1 Mining Operations

Copper mining is an important industry in Arizona. In 1999, activities of the Arizona

copper industry occurred on 187,900 acres of the state’s 72,960,000 acres (Arizona

Mining Association 2000). No mines are presently being operated in Cochise County.

However, Bisbee operates several tourist industries based on past mining in the area,

such as Bisbee Mining and Historical Museum and Queen Mine Tours.


3.2 Soils And Prime Farmland

3.2.1 Soils

Arizona has a diverse assortment of soil types throughout the state with variations in

depth, texture, chemical properties, and appropriate land uses. This diversity is directly

related to regional differences in climate, parent material, topography, and erosion

actions. The predominant soil association found within the project area is the Nickel-

Latene-Pinaleno Association (Hendricks 1985).

The Nickel-Latene-Pinaleno Association is found in the central portion of the Naco

Station and covers much of the area surrounding the POE. It consists of very deep and

shallow, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium. It is found on floodplains and fan

terraces at slopes of zero to 20 percent at elevations from 2,000 to 5,500 feet msl. More

detailed information regarding the soils in the project area is contained in previous EAs

(INS 2000; USACE 2000), and is incorporated herein by reference.

3.2.1.1 Hydric Soils

There are no hydric soils located within the project area (Wilson 2000; Bemis 2000).

3.2.2 Prime Farmland

There are no prime or unique farmlands located within the project area. Prime farmlands

are classified as Category 1 soils that occur mainly within the San Pedro Valley. Soils

within the project area are not considered unique because they require irrigation to be

arable (Bemis 2000).

3.3 Vegetation

Biological resources include native plants in the region around the proposed project

area. The proposed project region supports a plant community defined as semi-desert

grassland, a perennial grass-scrub community that is usually located between desert

scrub and higher elevation plant communities (Brown 1994). This habitat type is found in

southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northern Mexico between

elevations of 4,000 and 8,000 feet msl and receives an annual rainfall between 11 and

17 inches per year.


Semi-desert grassland is found in the valley areas of Cochise and eastern Pima

counties. This vegetation type is dominated by grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.), velvet

mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), and Arizona

cottontop (Digitaria californica). Other species in this community observed during the

November 1999 site visit include squawbush (Rhus trilobata), desert broom (Baccharis

sarothroides), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), Parry’s agave (Agave parryi),

and some oak species (Quercus sp.) (USACE 2000). More detailed information on

vegetation in the project area can be found in previous EAs (INS 2000; USACE 2000) and

is incorporated herein by reference.

A field reconnaissance survey was performed along the 1.2-mile corridor in March 2002

and a pedestrian survey of the entire Naco Station was performed in April 2002. These

biological surveys were conducted in an effort to inventory biological resources in the

proposed project area and evaluate the potential effects of the alternatives on these

resources.

Based on these recent field surveys, the semi-desert grassland designation is consistent

throughout the project region. Dominant vegetation observed adjacent to the existing road

and fence during the surveys was white thorn acacia (Acacia constricta), mesquite,

Lehmann lovegrass, and Plains lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia). Less common plants

observed in the area were mormon tea (Ephedra aspera), soaptree yucca (Yucca elata),

Christmas cholla (Opuntia leptocaulis), desert holly (Acourtia nana), and desert sumac

(Rhus microphylla). The corridor where the proposed action would occur is in a disturbed

state due to recent fence and road work along the border, which was addressed in the

JTF-6 Fence EA (USACE 2000).

3.4 Wildlife Communities

The native fauna of southeastern Arizona, which encompass Cochise County, include

approximately 370 bird species, 109 mammals, 23 amphibians, and 72 reptiles. The bird

population is dominated by sparrows and towhees (35 species); wood warblers (32

species); swans, geese, and ducks (31 species); tyrant flycatchers (30 species); and

sandpipers and phalaropes (26 species). Bird species diversity is highest in the spring


and fall when neotropical migrants (i.e., flycatchers and warblers) pass through on their

way to summer breeding or wintering grounds, and in the winter when summer resident

birds (i.e., robins, kinglets, and sparrows) from the northern U.S. and Canada arrive to

winter in the area. The majority of the mammal species found in the area are bats and

rodents (i.e., mice, rats, and squirrels). Rodents, such as pocket mice and kangaroo

rats, are the most commonly encountered. Of the 23 amphibian species that inhabit

southeastern Arizona, spadefoot toads and true toads are dominant and the most

widespread. Iguanid lizards, colubrid snakes, and whiptails are the most common

reptiles in the area. The types of wildlife commonly occurring in Cochise County are

listed in Appendix A of the EA for Infrastructure within USBP Naco-Douglas Corridor,

Cochise County, Arizona (INS 2000). More information on fauna within the project region

can be found in the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road Improvement Project

Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000).

A field reconnaissance survey was performed along the 1.2-mile corridor in March 2002

and pedestrian surveys were performed in April 2002 for the entire Naco Station. Common

fauna species observed during the April 2002 surveys of the station were black-tailed

jackrabbit, black-throated sparrow, white-winged dove, western kingbird, roadrunner,

scaled quail, Gambel’s quail, and verdin. No species were observed at the project site in

March 2002.

3.5 Unique or Sensitive Areas

Several unique or sensitive areas are found in or near Cochise County, Arizona. The

closest one to the project area is the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

This conservation area begins approximately 17 miles west of the project area.

3.6 Protected Species and Critical Habitats

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.] of 1973, as amended, was

enacted to provide a program for the preservation of endangered and threatened species

and to provide protection for the ecosystems upon which these species depend for their

survival. All Federal agencies are required to implement protection programs for

designated species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the act.


Responsibility for the identification of a threatened or endangered species and

development of any potential recovery plan lies with the Secretary of the Interior and the

Secretary of Commerce.

The USFWS is the primary agency responsible for implementing the ESA, and is

responsible for bird, terrestrial, and freshwater species. The USFWS responsibilities under

the ESA include: (1) the identification of threatened and endangered species; (2) the

identification of critical habitats for listed species; (3) implementation of research on, and

recovery efforts for, these species; and (4) consultation with other Federal agencies

concerning measures to avoid harm to listed species.

An endangered species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. A threatened species is a species likely to become endangered

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Proposed

species are those that have been formally submitted to Congress for official listing as

threatened or endangered. Species may be considered endangered or threatened when

any of the five following criteria occurs: (1) current/imminent destruction, modification, or

curtailment of their habitat or range; (2) overuse of the species for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy

of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or human-induced factors affect

continued existence.

In addition, the USFWS has identified species that are candidates for listing as a result

of identified threats to their continued existence. The candidate designation includes

those species for which the USFWS has sufficient information to support proposals to list

as endangered or threatened under ESA. However, proposed rules have not yet been

issued because such actions are precluded at present by other listing activity.

The ESA also calls for the conservation of what is termed Critical Habitat - the areas of

land, water, and air space that an endangered species needs for survival. Critical habitat

also includes such things as food and water, breeding sites, cover or shelter, and sufficient

habitat area to provide for normal population growth and behavior. One of the primary

threats to many species is the destruction or modification of essential habitat by

uncontrolled land and water development.


3.6.1 Federal

A total of 31 Federally endangered, threatened, proposed threatened, and candidate

species occur within Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS 2001). A total of 16 species are

listed as endangered, eight as threatened, two as proposed threatened, and five as

candidate (Table 3-1). This information was taken from a recently published document

for a project near Douglas, Arizona (approximately 20 miles to the east of Naco, AZ) and

the coordination letter can be found in Appendix B of that document (INS 2002). USFWS

coordination for the original barrier project was made under the EA for JTF-6 Proposed

Fence and Road Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona from which this EA

is tiered from (USACE 2000).

Protected species in the Naco-Douglas Corridor are generally concentrated near the San

Pedro River and the Huachuca Mountains. No known locations of threatened or

endangered species occur within the project area.

No evidence of Federally listed threatened or endangered species were found within the

project site during the site visit in March and April 2002, or during past surveys in the

project region (INS 2001; USACE 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000).

Protected feline species potentially occurring in the area have been a common concern

in the project area. One ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) sighting was reported in the last two

years in Mexico near Douglas, Arizona (approximately 20 miles east of the project area).

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) recently photographed the endangered

jaguar (Panthera onca) west of Nogales, Arizona (approximately 50 miles west of the

project area); this jaguar is the first photographed in six years in North America (Dye

2002). Until the December 2001 photograph, the last confirmed sighting of the jaguar

was in 1996 near the Baboquivari Mountains, approximately 100 miles to the west of the

project area in Pima County, Arizona. According to the AGFD there are no recorded

sightings of jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli) in or near the project area

in recent years (2001). There are no confirmed sightings of the jaguarundi in the region

(AGFD 2001; Tewes 2001). The historic range of these three cats is in the southwestern

part of the United States (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico) and Mexico.

Tab

le 3

-1

Fed

eral

ly L

iste

d, P

rop

ose

d, a

nd

Can

did

ate

Sp

ecie

s P

ote

ntia

lly O

ccu

rrin

g w

ithin

Co

chis

e C

ou

nty

, Ari

zon

a

Co

mm

on

/Sci

enti

fic

Nam

e F

eder

al

Sta

tus

Dat

e L

iste

d

Des

ign

ated

C

riti

cal

Hab

itat

H

abit

at R

equ

irem

ents

AM

PH

IBIA

NS

Chi

ricah

ua le

opar

d fr

og

Ran

a ch

irica

huen

sis

T

6/13

/02

67 F

R 4

0789

N

A

Str

eam

s, r

iver

s, b

ackw

ater

s, p

onds

, and

sto

ck ta

nks

Son

ora

tiger

sal

aman

der

Am

byst

oma

tigrin

um s

tebb

insi

E

1/

6/97

62

FR

665

N

A

Sto

ck ta

nks

and

impo

unde

d ci

eneg

as in

San

Raf

ael

Val

ley,

Hua

chuc

a M

ount

ains

B

IRD

S

Am

eric

an p

ereg

rine

falc

on

Fal

co p

ereg

rinus

ana

tum

E

10

/13/

70

35 F

R 1

6047

N

A

Clif

fs a

nd s

teep

terr

ain

usua

lly n

ear

wat

er o

r w

oodl

ands

w

ith a

bund

ant p

rey

Bal

d ea

gle

Hal

iaee

tus

leuc

ocep

halu

s T

7/

12/9

5 60

FR

359

99

NA

La

rge

tree

s or

clif

fs n

ear

wat

er (

rese

rvoi

rs, r

iver

s, a

nd

stre

ams)

with

abu

ndan

t pre

y B

row

n pe

lican

P

elec

anus

occ

iden

talis

cal

iforn

icus

E

10

/16/

70

35 F

R 1

6047

N

A

Coa

stal

land

and

isla

nds;

Ariz

ona

lake

s an

d riv

ers

Cac

tus

ferr

ugin

ous

pygm

y-ow

l G

lauc

idiu

m b

rasi

lianu

m c

acto

rum

E

3/

10/9

7 62

FR

107

30

NA

M

atur

e co

ttonw

ood/

will

ow, m

esqu

ite b

osqu

es, a

nd

sono

ran

dese

rt s

crub

M

exic

an s

potte

d ow

l S

trix

occ

iden

talis

luci

da

T

4/11

/91

56 F

R 1

4678

2/

1/01

66

FR

853

0 O

ld g

row

th fo

rest

ass

ocia

ted

with

ste

ep c

anyo

ns

Mou

ntai

n pl

over

C

hara

driu

s m

onta

nus

PT

2/

16/9

9 64

FR

758

7 N

A

Ope

n ar

id p

lain

s, s

hort

-gra

ss p

rairi

es, a

nd c

ultiv

ated

form

s

Nor

ther

n ap

lom

ado

falc

on

Fal

co fe

mor

alis

sep

tent

riona

lis

E

1/25

/86

51 F

R 6

686

NA

D

eser

t gra

ssla

nds

Sou

thw

este

rn w

illow

flyc

atch

er

Em

pido

nax

trai

llii e

xtim

us

E

2/27

/95

60 F

R 1

0694

N

A

Den

se r

ipar

ian

vege

tatio

n

Who

opin

g cr

ane

Gru

s am

eric

ana

E

3/11

/67

32 F

R 4

001

5/15

/78

43 F

R 2

0938

M

arsh

es, p

rairi

es, r

iver

bot

tom

s

Yel

low

-bill

ed c

ucko

o C

occy

zus

amer

ican

us

C

NA

N

A

Larg

e bl

ocks

of r

ipar

ian

woo

dlan

ds

FIS

HE

S

Bea

utifu

l shi

ner

Cyp

rinel

la fo

rmos

a T

8/

31/8

4 49

FR

344

90

8/13

/84

49 F

R 3

4490

D

eep

pool

s in

cre

eks,

sco

ured

are

as o

f cie

nega

s, a

nd

othe

r st

ream

-ass

ocia

ted

quie

t wat

ers

Gila

chu

b G

ila in

term

edia

P

E

8/9/

02

67 F

R 5

1947

N

A

Poo

ls, s

prin

gs, c

iene

gas,

and

str

eam

s


Co

mm

on

/Sci

enti

fic

Nam

e F

eder

al

Sta

tus

Dat

e L

iste

d

Des

ign

ated

C

riti

cal

Hab

itat

H

abit

at R

equ

irem

ents

Loac

h m

inno

w

Tia

roga

cob

itis

T

10/2

8/86

51

FR

394

68

3/8/

94

59 F

R 1

0898

Lo

wer

San

Ped

ro R

iver

has

bee

n de

sign

ated

as

criti

cal

habi

tat b

y U

SF

WS

S

pike

dace

M

eda

fulg

ida

T

7/1/

86

51 F

R 2

3769

2/

25/0

0 65

FR

243

27

Low

er S

an P

edro

Riv

er h

as b

een

desi

gnat

ed a

s cr

itica

l ha

bita

t by

US

FW

S

Yaq

ui c

atfis

h Ic

talu

rus

pric

ei

T

8/31

/84

49 F

R 3

4490

8/

13/8

4 49

FR

344

90

Mod

erat

e to

larg

e st

ream

s w

ith s

low

cur

rent

ove

r sa

nd

and

rock

bot

tom

s Y

aqui

chu

b G

ila p

urpu

rea

E

8/31

/84

49 F

R 3

4490

8/

13/8

4 49

FR

344

90

Dee

p po

ols

of s

mal

l str

eam

s, p

ools

, or

pond

s ne

ar

unde

rcut

ban

ks

Yaq

ui to

pmin

now

P

oeci

liops

is o

ccid

enta

lis

sono

riens

is

E

3/11

/67

32 F

R 4

001

NA

S

trea

ms,

spr

ings

, and

cie

nega

s be

twee

n 4,

000

- 5,

000

feet

ele

vatio

n, p

rimar

ily in

sha

llow

are

as

INV

ER

TE

BR

AT

ES

Hua

chuc

a sp

rings

nail

Pyr

gulo

psis

thom

pson

i C

N

A

NA

A

quat

ic a

reas

, sm

all s

prin

gs w

ith v

eget

atio

n sl

ow to

m

oder

ate

flow

M

AM

MA

LS

Bla

ck-t

aile

d pr

airie

dog

C

ynom

ys lu

dovi

cian

us

C

NA

N

A

Bur

row

s in

pla

ins

and

gras

slan

d ha

bita

ts

Jagu

ar

Pan

ther

a on

ca

E

7/22

/97

62 F

R 3

9147

N

A

Var

iety

of h

abita

ts in

clud

ing

low

land

wet

hab

itats

and

ty

pica

lly s

wam

py s

avan

nas

Jagu

arun

di

Her

pailu

rus

yago

uaro

undi

cac

omitl

i E

6/

14/7

6 41

FR

240

64

NA

D

ense

thor

ny th

icke

ts o

f mes

quite

and

aca

cia

Less

er lo

ng-n

osed

bat

Le

pton

ycte

ris c

uras

oae

yerb

abue

nae

E

9/30

/88

53 F

R 3

8456

N

A

Des

ert s

crub

hab

itat w

ith c

olum

nar

cact

i and

aga

ve

pres

ent a

s fo

od p

lant

s

Mex

ican

gra

y w

olf

Can

is lu

pus

baile

yi

E

3/11

/67

32 F

R 4

001

NA

C

happ

aral

, woo

dlan

d, a

nd fo

rest

ed a

reas

. May

cro

ss

dese

rt a

reas

O

celo

t Le

opar

dus

pard

alis

E

7/

21/8

2 47

FR

316

70

NA

H

umid

trop

ical

and

sub

-tro

pica

l for

ests

, sav

anna

s, a

nd

sem

i-arid

thor

nscr

ub

PL

AN

TS

Can

elo

Hill

s la

dies

’ tre

sses

S

pira

nthe

s de

lites

cens

E

1/

6/97

62

FR

665

N

A

Fin

ely

grai

ned,

hig

hly

orga

nic,

sat

urat

ed s

oils

of c

iene

gas

Coc

hise

pin

cush

ion

cact

us

Cor

ypha

ntha

rob

bins

orum

T

1/

9/86

51

FR

952

N

A

Sem

ides

ert g

rass

land

with

sm

all s

hrub

s, a

gave

, oth

er

cact

i, an

d gr

ama

gras

s


Co

mm

on

/Sci

enti

fic

Nam

e F

eder

al

Sta

tus

Dat

e L

iste

d

Des

ign

ated

C

riti

cal

Hab

itat

H

abit

at R

equ

irem

ents

Hua

chuc

a w

ater

um

bel

Lila

eops

is s

chaf

fner

iana

ssp

. R

ecur

va

E

1/6/

97

62 F

R 6

65

7/12

/99

64 F

R 3

7441

C

iene

gas,

per

enni

al lo

w g

radi

ent s

trea

ms,

wet

land

s

Lem

mon

flea

bane

E

riger

on le

mm

onii

C

NA

N

A

Cre

vice

s, le

dges

, and

bou

lder

s in

can

yon

botto

ms

in p

ine-

oak

woo

dlan

ds

RE

PT

ILE

S

New

Mex

ico

ridge

-nos

ed

rattl

esna

ke

Cro

talu

s w

illar

di o

bscu

rus

T

4/4/

78

43 F

R 3

4479

8/

4/78

43

FR

344

76

Pre

sum

ably

can

yon

botto

ms

in p

ine-

oak

and

pin-

fir

com

mun

ities

Lege

nd:

E =

End

ange

red

Sou

rces

: US

FW

S 2

001;

AG

FD

200

0

T

= T

hrea

tene

d

P

T =

Pro

pose

d T

hrea

tene

d

C

= C

andi

date



The range of the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae) is from

“southern Arizona and extreme southwestern New Mexico, through western Mexico, and

south to El Salvador” (Bat Conservation International 2001, University of Arizona 2001).

The occurrences in southern Arizona range from “the Picacho Mountains southwest to

the Agu Dulce Mountains, southeast to the Chiricahua Mountains” (University of Arizona

2001). Although the project area is outside of the lesser long-nosed bat’s range, their

habitats, roosting areas, and feeding requirements were evaluated. Assessments were

conducted during a field survey performed in 2001 (INS 2001) and were based on the

presence of the columnar cacti and agaves, which are preferred food sources, and

appropriate roosting and breeding sites, such as caves and mines (Bat Conservation

International 2001, University of Arizona 2001). No such cacti or roosting and breeding

sites were observed in or near the project area during previous surveys (INS 2001;

USACE 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000). Agaves are common in the project region, but none

were observed in the project site during the site visit in March and April 2002.

3.6.2 Critical Habitat

Critical habitat has been designated for seven species identified as potentially occurring

in Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS 2000). None of their designated critical habitats are

present within the project area.

3.6.3 State

The AGFD maintains lists of Wildlife of Special Concern. This list includes flora and

fauna whose occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived

threats or population declines (AGFD 2000). These species are not necessarily the

same as those protected by the Federal government under the ESA. Recent letters from

AGFD can be found in the appendix of the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road

Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000).

The Arizona Department of Agriculture maintains a list of protected plant species within

Arizona. The 1993 Arizona Native Plant Law defined five categories of protection within

the state. These include: Highly Safeguarded, no collection allowed; Salvage Restricted,

collection only with permit; Export Restricted, transport out of state prohibited; Salvage

Assessed, permit required to remove live trees; and Harvest Restricted, permit required to

remove plant by-products (AGFD 2000).


There was no evidence of or observations of any state-listed flora or fauna within the

project site during the March and April 2002 site visits.

3.7 Cultural Resources

The cultural resources within the project area are extensive and diverse. Numerous

terrestrial investigations have been performed north of the U.S.-Mexico border in the

project area. These investigations and their results are discussed in detail in the EA

completed for USBP’s infrastructure along the Naco-Douglas corridor in Cochise County,

Arizona (INS 2000) and in the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road Improvement

Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000).

Surveys within the current project area were performed as a part of the JTF-6 EA, from

which this EA is tiered. Section 106 coordination was conducted for all ground disturbing

activities during the JTF-6 NEPA process. Furthermore, recent surveys were conducted

along the entire Naco-Douglas corridor to locate and re-evaluate sites that were

previously identified. No sites that are considered potentially eligible for inclusion to the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are found within the project area (USACE

2001).

No ground disturbing activities are associated with the Preferred Alternative; therefore, in

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.3 (a)(1), there is no potential to cause effects.

3.8 Air Quality

The State of Arizona has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

(40 CFR Part 50) as the state’s air quality criteria (Table 3-2). Primary standards are

established to protect public health while secondary standards provide protection for the

public's welfare including wildlife, climate, recreation, transportation, and economic

values. States are required to adopt ambient air quality standards that are at least as

stringent as the Federal NAAQS; however, the state standards may be more stringent.

Based on measured ambient criteria pollutant data, areas are designated as having air

quality better than the standard (attainment) or worse than the standard (nonattainment).


Table 3-2: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

POLLUTANT STANDARD VALUE STANDARD TYPE

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour average 9ppm (10mg/m3)** Primary 1-hour average 35ppm (40mg/m3)** Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.053ppm (100µ/m3)** Primary and Secondary Ozone (O3) 1-hour average* 0.12ppm (235µg/m3)** Primary and Secondary 8-hour average* 0.08ppm (157µg/m3)** Primary and Secondary Lead (Pb) Quarterly average 1.5µg/m3 Primary and Secondary Particulate<10 micrometers (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean 50µg/m3 Primary and Secondary 24-hour average 150µg/m3 Primary and Secondary Particulate<2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) Annual arithmetic mean 15µg/m3 Primary and Secondary 24-hour Average 65µg/m3 Primary and Secondary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.03ppm (80µg/m3)** Primary 24-hour average 0.14ppm (365µg/m3)** Primary 3-hour average 0.50ppm

(1300µg/m3)** Secondary

Source: USEPA 1995. Legend: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter of air µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air *The ozone 1-hour standard applies only to areas that were designated non-attainment when the ozone 8-hour standard was adopted in July 1997. **Parenthetical value is an approximate equivalent concentration.

Cochise County is in attainment for all Federal NAAQS except for Douglas and Paul

Spur. The Clean Air Act requires that for areas designated “non-attainment”, plans must

be prepared and implemented to bring the area into attainment within a specified time.

More detailed information on air quality in the project area can be found in the EA

completed for USBP’s infrastructure along the Naco-Douglas corridor in Cochise County,

Arizona (INS 2000) and the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road Improvement

Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000). The information contained in

these two documents is incorporated herein by reference.


3.9 Water Resources

The project area receives water from surface runoff and groundwater via precipitation

and snowmelt in the local mountains. Geologic forces have created a regional terrain

that includes arroyos or washes (deep gullies), steep canyons, and somewhat flat

basins. Due to the arid climate of the area, most of the drainage channels are dry much

of the year. Rivers and streams that flow periodically due to fluctuations in precipitation

are referred to as being ephemeral. Intermittent waterways (rivers, streams, etc.) are

those that flow as a result of seasonal precipitation. Due to the flash flood tendency of

the washes, sediment loads are high when water is present. Natural and human-induced

factors determine the quality of these resources. Numerous small ephemeral drainages

transect the project area.

The major surface water drainage near the project area is the Greenbush Draw, which

flows just north of Naco and is a tributary of the San Pedro River. Numerous smaller

streams, which are intermittent or ephemeral in nature, flow to or from the draw

depending on topography.

Groundwater resources in the surrounding areas are available from both unconfined

(water table) and confined (artesian aquifer) conditions. Water depths to unconfined

water are between 50 and 570 feet, while confined water can be found from 500 to 1,000

feet below the ground (USACE 2000).

More information on surface and groundwater resources within the Naco area is

described in detail in the EA for Infrastructure within USBP Naco-Douglas Corridor,

Cochise County, Arizona (INS 2000) and the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road

Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000). The information

contained in these two EAs is incorporated herein by reference (USACE 2000; INS

2000).

3.9.1 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands

There are no jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, within the

project site (USACE 2000).


3.10 Socioeconomics

The 2000 census estimated the population of Cochise County to be 117,755 with Naco’s

population accounting for approximately 833 of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 2001).

The four major towns closest to the project area are Huachuca, Bisbee, Douglas, and

Sierra Vista. More information, incorporated herein by reference, can be found in the EA

for Infrastructure within USBP Naco-Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, Arizona (INS

2000) and the EA for JTF-6 Proposed Fence and Road Improvement Project, Naco,

Cochise County, Arizona (USACE 2000).

3.11 Noise

The three common classifications of noise are: (1) general audible noise that is heard by

humans; (2) special noise, such as sonic booms and artillery blasts that can have a sound

pressure or shock component; and (3) noise-induced vibration also typically caused by

sonic booms and artillery blasts involving noise levels that can cause physical movement

(i.e., vibration) and even possible damage to natural and man-made structures such as

buildings and cultural resource structures. Most noise sources will fall within the audible

noise classification because of the rural nature of the majority of the project area.

Audible noise typically is measured in A-weighted sound pressure levels expressed in

decibels (dBA). The A-scale de-emphasizes the low and high frequency portions of the

sound spectrum and provides a good approximation of the response of the average

human ear. On the A-scale, zero dBA represents the average least perceptible sound,

such as gentle breathing, and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum may

rupture, such as a jet engine at open throttle (National Research Council 1977).

Since the proposed activities are not capable of attaining the speed of sound and thus are

incapable of causing special noises, all noise levels discussed herein are measured on the

A-scale dBA. Normal rural noise levels in the project area would range from a low of 35

dBA over the majority of the corridor to a high 60 dBA near any rural community. More

detailed information on noise in the project area can be found in previous EAs (INS 2000;

USACE 2000) and is incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section of the EA addresses potential impacts to the affected environment within

the Naco area for the No Action and Preferred Alternatives outlined in Section 2.0.

4.1 Land Use

4.1.1 No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not affect current land use within the

Naco area.

4.1.2 Preferred Alternative

No changes to land use in this area would occur from implementing this alternative. The

project area is currently used as a border enforcement zone and would continue to be

used as such. Fencing would be installed along the existing border roadway.

4.2 Soils And Prime Farmland


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would eliminate potential direct disturbances

to soils from further construction activities. Regardless of the alternative selected,

existing erosion problems would continue, since the USBP would continue to use the

roads for patrol activities. Soils found in the Naco area have medium to high erosion

hazards, depending on the slope. Maintenance activities would occur along the existing

road adjacent to the border, but soil erosion would continue to be a problem.

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no effect on prime farmland in

the project area because there are no prime farmlands.


Construction activities addressed under this alternative would occur in proximity to the

border road, where soils are already considered disturbed. The only ground disturbance

expected would be during the occasional installation of support poles. The holes would


be about eight inches in diameter and backfilled with concrete. Best management

practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into the construction plan to control erosion.

Prime and unique farmlands are not found within the Naco-Douglas Corridor (Wilson

2000; Bemis 2000).

4.3 Vegetation


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would eliminate the potential for direct

disturbances to vegetation from further construction activities. However, the existing

road right-of-way where all fence construction would occur is already devoid of

vegetation due to previous construction and maintenance activities.

Impacts to vegetation outside the maintained road corridor from illegal entrants would

continue to occur. Indirect effects have occurred to vegetation by illegal entrants

diverting around fences or away from areas that are heavily patrolled. Improvements in

the infrastructure and increases in patrol activities have resulted in some illegal entrants

redirecting their efforts into more remote areas. Increases in illegal foot and vehicle

traffic would continue to result in damage to vegetation.


This alternative would include the conversion of 1.2 miles of vehicle barrier to landing

mat fence. The corridor along which the action would take place has been previously

disturbed and no additional impacts to vegetation are expected. The conversion to

landing mat fence should substantially reduce secondary impacts to vegetation from

illegal entry within the project area.

However, indirect effects could occur to the vegetation beyond the project area by UDAs

attempting to avoid the fenced corridor. The magnitude of these effects cannot be

determined at the present, since the routes selected by UDAs and smugglers are at their

discretion and out of the control of the USBP.


4.4 Wildlife


The No Action Alternative would not allow the conversion of the vehicle barrier to a

fence. Larger mammals and herpetiles would benefit from the No Action Alternative

since solid fences can impede movement by such species. Fences have also afforded

protection to some wildlife species and other sensitive resources by reducing habitat

disturbances caused by UDA activities. Fences do significantly reduce illegal entries

and, indirectly, reduce the amount of foot traffic within wildlife communities in the U.S.


No additional direct impacts to wildlife resources are expected from the conversion of the

vehicle barrier to landing mat fence since no additional wildlife habitat would be altered.

However, the landing mat fence would create a barrier to wildlife movement, especially

for larger mammals and herpetiles. The magnitude of this impact cannot be quantified at

the present. However, there are no wildlife populations in the project area that are

sensitive to potentially slight reductions in genetic variability. Therefore, impeding some

local wildlife movement in this area is not considered significant.

4.5 Unique or Sensitive Areas

There are no areas classified as unique or sensitive natural areas found within the

proposed project area.

4.6 Protected Species and Critical Habitats


The No Action Alternative would have no effect on protected species or designated

critical habitats. However, increased and continued illegal traffic and the consequent

enforcement activities could be adverse to protected species and critical habitats.


No listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitats are known

to occur within the project area. Thus, the proposed activities within the project area


would not be expected to adversely affect protected species or critical habitats. No

Federally listed species were found in the project area during the surveys conducted in

March and April 2002.

No agaves or columnar cacti, a preferred food source for the lesser long-nosed bat,

were located in the project site during surveys performed in March and April 2002.

Agaves are present in the surrounding communities, but would not be disturbed by the

proposed action.

There have been no confirmed sightings of the ocelot, jaguar, and jaguarundi in the

project area. The conversion of 1.2 miles of vehicle barriers to landing mat fence is not

expected to have a negative effect on the migration patterns of these three species,

since they are not known to occur in the project area. The proposed fence is located

approximately one mile from the Naco POE; this area receives heavy traffic and is

urbanized. The presence of these feline species in this type of environment would be

unlikely. The closest feline sighting to the project area was one ocelot reported in the last

two years on the Mexico side of the border near Douglas, Arizona, approximately 20

miles east of the project area.

4.7 Cultural Resources


The No Action Alternative would not result in any direct effects to cultural resources.

However, as illegal traffic, and the consequent enforcement actions continue, indirect

effects to known and undiscovered sites would continue to occur.


Conversion to landing mat fence would not directly affect any cultural resource sites,

since no additional ground disturbance would be required. Indirect beneficial effects

would occur, however, by reducing illegal foot traffic in the area.


4.8 Air Quality


The No Action Alternative would eliminate all potential emission sources associated with

the proposed vehicle barrier conversion. No further impacts, beneficial or adverse, are

expected to occur under the No Action Alternative.


Air quality impacts from construction and maintenance activities of fences include

emissions due to fuel combustion from heavy equipment, and fugitive dust due to travel

through the construction area. Particulate concentrations would be expected to be below

de minimis thresholds due to the short duration of the construction activities and

negligible ground disturbances. Thus, the proposed action would not violate national

standards. All impacts would be temporary in nature.

4.9 Water Resources


No impacts to water resources would be expected under this alternative.


Conversion to landing mat fence would not affect any water resources since none occur

within the project corridor (USACE 2000).

4.10 Socioeconomics

4.10.1 No-Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would provide no direct effects to socioeconomic resources.

Indirect effects due to the lack of deterrence to illegal aliens and smugglers and the

reduced capability of the USBP agents to apprehend illegal entrants would include

increased crime, loss of property, and costs of social programs.



Materials and other project expenditures would predominantly be obtained through

merchants in the local community, providing minor increases to the local economy.

Landing mat panels, as discussed previously, are wartime surplus items and thus would

not be purchased. Labor would be obtained through the National Guard, active/reserve

military units primarily through JTF-6, USBP maintenance staff, or commercial

contractors.

4.10.3 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” require

each Federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionate adverse

effects of its proposed actions on minority populations and low-income communities.

The racial mix of Cochise County is about 90 percent Caucasians, and less than half (34

percent) of the entire county population claim to be of Hispanic origin. The proposed

projects would not displace residences or commercial structures in or around the project

area. Therefore, disproportionate effects to minority populations would not be expected.

Cochise County has about 21 percent of its total population living at or below poverty

levels. The 1997 per capita personal income was estimated to be about $17,000, which

indicated a 28 percent increase since 1990. However, the proposed action’s location is

east of Naco and remote to any low-income neighborhoods. Consequently, no

disproportionate adverse effects to low-income populations would be expected from the

implementation of any of the alternatives.

On the other hand, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would enhance the

probability of success for the INS/USBP. This increased success in controlling illegal

drug activity and the increasing flow of UDAs into the Naco area would benefit all

populations, regardless of income, nationality, or ethnicity. In addition, construction

activities would have short term, but positive impacts on local economies from sales of

construction materials, other project expenditures, and temporary employment. Long

term positive impacts would occur on local, regional, and national levels by the reduction

of illegal immigrants and drug trafficking and the associated social costs.


In addition, the Proposed Action alternative is not expected to generate

disproportionately high environmental health and safety risks to children as specified by

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks.” This

Executive Order was prompted by the recognition that children, still undergoing

physiological growth and development, are more sensitive to adverse environmental

health and safety risks than adults.

4.11 Noise Effects


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in no additional INS or USBP-

related construction activities, and, thus, no increases in ambient noise levels.


If this alternative was selected, equipment, such as welding machines, cranes, and

trucks, would cause temporary increases in noise levels. The magnitude of these effects

would depend upon the time of year, proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g. schools,

hospitals, churches, and residences), climatic conditions, type and number equipment

pieces, and terrain. Based on past similar activities, the construction would occur only

during daylight, thus reducing the day-night average sound level and the chances of

causing annoyances. No blasting would be expected.

Animals, particularly domesticated species, would be expected to quickly habituate to

construction noise. Wildlife may at first be startled and flee the construction area;

however, wildlife species, too, have demonstrated rapid habituation, even to loud and

sudden noises which cause panic responses. Bowles (1997) reported that habituation

could occur with fewer than five exposures. Several other recent studies (Workman et al.

1992; Krausman et al. 1993, 1998; Weisenberger et al. 1996) have indicated that wildlife

habituate through repeated exposure without long-term discernible negative effects.

Ambient noise levels would return upon completion of the proposed projects with no

long-term, significant adverse impacts. The project area is rural and is not in the vicinity

of sensitive receptors. No significant adverse effects would be expected.


4.12 Cumulative Effects

This section of the EA addresses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed

conversion activities and other projects/programs that are planned for the region.


Approximately 126 acres of wildlife habitat near Naco have been impacted by fence

construction, new road construction, road improvements, and the installation of stadium

lighting and RVS sites in the past five years. Of these 126 acres, 62 acres are located in

Chihuahuan desert scrub, 48 acres are located in semi-desert grassland, 11 acres are

located in Madrean Evergreen Woodland, and five acres are located in plains grassland.

However, there is no documented evidence that wildlife populations in the area were

significantly impacted by this habitat loss. The linear nature of the clearing for road

construction, upgrade, and fence and stadium lighting right-of-ways, and, more

importantly, the highly degraded and disturbed nature of the majority of the project

locations have contributed to the determination of negligible effects to wildlife

populations. In general, these impacts did not result in a significant reduction in the

number of animals whose home range is within or adjacent to the project area, and no

change in the overall species composition of the area is believed to have occurred due

to these projects.

Wildlife movement in the project area might have been impacted by the infrastructure

construction and maintenance over the past five years; however, there is no

documentation of this effect. The greatest effect to movement of small animals generally

happens when a disturbance such as road grading, dozing, or fence construction occurs.

Mobile animals escaped to areas of similar habitat, while other slow or sedentary

animals such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals were potentially lost. This

displacement and/or reduction in the number of animals did not significantly impact

animal communities due to the presence of similar habitat adjacent to the project area.

Larger terrestrial wildlife movements in the construction and maintenance areas were

not affected due to the short duration of construction activities at each site. Additionally,

construction activities were only conducted during daylight hours. No construction


activities were conducted during the early morning hours or nighttime hours when wildlife

species are most active.

Roads and fences resulted in other indirect impacts. Improved roads increased the

speed at which vehicles travel and increased traffic as well. Higher vehicular speeds

decreased the response time for wildlife to avoid the vehicles, and thus, potentially

increased the number of accidental wildlife deaths. Fences serve as a barrier to wildlife

species; the magnitude of this effect depends upon the fence design and location.

Fences that would act as a physical barrier to wildlife are generally constructed at or

near POEs, which are located within very developed areas. Consequently, such fences

do not have a significant effect on wildlife movement. Vehicle barriers do not impede

wildlife movement or remove/alter significant amounts of wildlife habitat.

The No Action Alternative would result in no additional direct effects to the area's

resources. No threatened or endangered species or critical habitat would be affected,

nor would there be any adverse effects on cultural resources sites or historic structures

that are listed or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Likewise, no additional direct

impacts to air quality, water resources, soils, and socioeconomic conditions would occur

under this alternative.

Long term indirect cumulative effects have occurred and would continue to occur to the

area’s natural habitats from a variety of sources such as urban development, mining

operations, off-road recreational vehicles, ranching, UDA traffic, and USBP and INS

activities; however, these effects, both beneficial and adverse, are difficult, if not

impossible, to quantify. Reductions in habitat have undoubtedly created inter- and intra-

species competition for available food and shelter and, eventually, slight reductions in

some wildlife populations. Given the rural nature of Cochise County, 126 acres of altered

habitat would be a negligible loss.

The increase in lights along the border also could have produced some long-term

cumulative effects, although the magnitude of these effects in some areas is not

presently known. Some species, such as insectivorous bats, may benefit from the

concentration of insects that would be attracted to the lights. Circadian rhythms of other

diurnal species, however, may be disturbed enough that breeding or feeding patterns


are skewed, causing synergistic physiological changes. Increased patrol activities would

increase the potential for some wildlife specimens to be accidentally hit and killed. Such

losses would not be expected to result in significant reductions to the populations.

The USBP Naco Station currently maintains about 21 miles of drag roads throughout its

2,000 square mile AO. Drag roads are existing, unimproved roads that are highly

traveled or regularly crossed by UDAs or smugglers. The surface of these roads is

prepared using a method known as dragging. Dragging is accomplished by the use of a

4-wheel drive vehicle towing several tires bolted together and pulled on sections of the

road at speeds between five and seven miles per hour. This method erases old tracks

and smoothes the road surface so any new tracks crossing the road can be easily

located. These roads are located within known UDA and smuggler travel corridors and

are instrumental in detecting evidence of vehicle and/or pedestrian crossings. Many of

these roads are open to the public and used as general transportation routes. The Naco

Station will drag these roads at least daily and occasionally up to three times per day.

Since dragging occurs on existing roads, no direct effects to vegetation or wildlife

occurs. However, the dragging activities do produce fugitive dust, which settles on

adjacent vegetation and can result in reduced photosynthesis.

Helicopter flights are conducted within the Naco Stations AO on a daily basis, with no set

flight pattern. However, the reconnaissance flights are typically flown along the

international border of State Highway 92, at altitudes of about 200 to 300 feet above

ground level. The purpose of these flights is multifold: (1) identify signs of illegal entry,

(2) assist in the apprehension of UDAs and smugglers, (3) serve as a deterrent to illegal

entry, (4) serve as force multiplier, (5) enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of

ground patrols and, (6) provide search and rescue missions for UDAs and smugglers.

While these flights can cause temporary disturbances to wildlife and recreationists, they

are considered to be negligible due to the short duration and infrequency of the

disturbance.

Positive cumulative benefits have resulted from INS activities as well. Additional

knowledge regarding threatened or endangered species’ locations, distribution, and life

requisites has been obtained through surveys and monitoring efforts associated with INS


construction projects. Erosion has been alleviated along some roads, and fences have

precluded illegal foot and vehicular traffic through environmentally sensitive areas.

The INS/USBP is currently in the early stages of planning road improvements along a 4-

mile reach east and west of the Naco POE. These improvements would include grading

and resurfacing the existing roadway and installing up to four low water crossings to

provide an all-weather patrol road. The INS/USBP is also in the preliminary planning

phase of identifying/designing infrastructure projects along the entire international border

within the Naco and Douglas Stations AO. This infrastructure could include primary and

secondary fences, lights, RVS, and patrol/drag roads within a 300-foot corridor. These

activities are being planned and would require additional NEPA documentation to

analyze and present the impacts and mitigation, if required.

Plans by other agencies in the region which would also affect the region’s natural and

human environment include the road improvements by Arizona Department of

Transportation (ADOT), the commercial truck U.S. Highway 80 bypass and border

crossings near Douglas, the Bisbee-Douglas International Airport expansion, and the

reactivation of the abandoned Southern Pacific rail line by SWKR, Inc to the west of

Naco. With the exception of the proposed new bypass and border crossing near

Douglas, the remaining projects would be along existing corridors and/or within

previously disturbed sites (e.g., airport). Land use would change along the bypass, and

additional wildlife habitat would be lost. The magnitude of these effects would depend

upon the length and width of the bypass right-of-way (ROW) and the extant conditions

within and adjacent to the ROW.

Reactivation of the rail line and crossing near Naco would result in additional habitat

losses, even though the rail would probably be constructed along the existing, but

abandoned, line. The tracks were removed in 1975 and the line has begun to

revegetate. Reactivation of the line would also increase noise in the immediate vicinity

and increase potential health and safety risks due to transportation of hazardous cargo.


Implementation of this alternative would have similar cumulative effects as the No Action

Alternative, since very little, if any, ground disturbances would occur. Furthermore, any


of the disturbances would occur within areas that are already heavily disturbed by on-

going or past activities. The primary cumulative effect that would occur under the

Preferred Alternative, as opposed to the No Action Alternative, would be the barrier to

wildlife movement, especially for larger mammals and herpetiles; no provisions have

been made for small mammal passageways through the fence. The magnitude of this

impact cannot be quantified at the present, but there are no wildlife populations in the

project area that are anticipated to be sensitive to potentially slight reductions in genetic

variability. Also, the fence would be constructed in an area that has already been

developed and wildlife species would most likely not be utilizing the project area for habitat

or for migration purposes. Therefore, the potential to impede wildlife movement in this area

is not considered significant.

Construction activities would result in temporary emissions, but they are short term and

would not be expected to add significantly to the cumulative effects.

Indirect effects could occur to the vegetation beyond the project area by UDAs

attempting to avoid the fenced corridor. USBP would patrol areas beyond the landing

mat fence to apprehend UDAs, which would lessen any indirect effects to vegetation

from illegal traffic trying to skirt around the barrier. The magnitude of these effects

cannot be determined at the present, since the routes selected by UDAs and smugglers

are at their discretion and out of the control of the USBP. Since there are no plans for

ground disturbing activities, no provisions have been made to prevent UDAs or

smugglers from tunneling under the fence.

Future plans to construct bollard style fencing between where the existing landing mat

fence ends and where the proposed landing mat fence would begin have been designed

(see Figure 1-1). This is a section along the border where a minor drainage crosses into

Mexico, and the bollard style fence would allow for seasonal water events to flow

unimpeded. Also, bollard fence, as described in Section 2.3.2, leaves small gaps in

between the poles, allowing for small mammals and herpetiles to cross though. This

section of bollard style fence is approximately 0.2 mile and would be addressed under a

separate NEPA document.

SECTION 5.0ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES


5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN MEASURES

This chapter describes those measures that could be implemented to reduce or

eliminate potential adverse impacts to the human and natural environment. Many of

these measures have been incorporated as standard operating procedures by INS and

USBP on past projects. Environmental design measures are presented for the resource

category that could be potentially affected. The proposed mitigation measures would be

coordinated through the appropriate agencies and land managers/administrators.

5.1 Air Quality

Proper and routine maintenance of all vehicles, generators, and other equipment would

be implemented to ensure that air emissions are within the design standards of the

equipment. If bivouac sites were required (in the event the National Guard or other

military units are used for construction services), generators and other similar field

equipment would be kept to the minimum required. Where practicable, drop lines from

local electrical systems would be used as a substitute for generators.

Project-related emissions would be minimized by the implementation of BMPs in the

form of a truck watering program for roads and construction zones within the project

area, construction curtailed in winds exceeding 25 miles per hour, efficient utilization of

equipment to minimize the amount of time engines are left idling, and upkeep and

maintenance of construction equipment to ensure that engines and emission systems

are properly tuned. Any necessary air quality operating permits are the responsibility of

the contractor.

SECTION 6.0PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT


6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.1 Agency Coordination

This chapter discusses consultation and coordination that would occur during

preparation of the draft and final versions of this document. This would include contacts

that are made during the development of the proposed action and writing of the EA.

Formal and informal coordination will be conducted with the following agencies:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

• Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

• Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)

• Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)

• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

• Arizona Department of Agriculture

6.2 Public Review

The draft EA was made available for public review for a period of 30 days, and the Notice

of Availability (NOA) was published in the local newspaper. Proof of publication is included

in Appendix A of this document. A request was received from the public to extend the

comment period an additional 24 days and the request was granted. Three public

comment letters were submitted on the draft document and are included in Appendix A.

Summaries of the comments received and the responses to these comments are

presented in the following section.

The final EA will be released to the public and a NOA will be published in the local

newspaper. Exhibit 6-1 is a copy of the NOA that will be published for the final EA.


Exhibit 6-1

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

for Conversion of Vehicle Barriers to Landing Mat Fence

Naco, Cochise County, Arizona

The public is hereby notified of the availability of the final Environmental Assessment (EA) for fence construction along the U.S.-Mexico Border near Naco, Cochise County, Arizona. This EA addresses the conversion of 1.2 miles of existing vehicle barriers to landing mat fence along the International Border by welding landing mat panels to the vehicle barriers. The final EA will be available for review at the Douglas Library, 560 E. 10th Street, Douglas, Arizona 85607 or can be viewed and/or downloaded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District’s webpage at http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/ins/Pages/Publicreview.cfm.


6.3 Comments and Responses

The following sections address the three comment letters received during the public

review of the draft EA.

6.3.1 SouthWest Alliance to Resist Militarization (SWARM)

Comment 1: The commenter claims that the EA is inadequate because of supposedly

erroneous statements regarding the lack of vegetation and wildlife at the project site.

Response 1: Since the proposed project is to weld landing mat fence to existing vehicle

barriers along the road, there would be no need to disturb any additional vegetation. The

road right-of-way is already devoid of vegetation due to vehicle traffic along the roadway,

and previous construction and maintenance activities, which were addressed under

previous NEPA documents (USACE 2000).

Nowhere in the document does it state, “no wildlife species were observed, so thus there

will be no impact on wildlife.” This EA addresses the potential impact to wildlife migration

patterns by converting vehicle barriers to landing mat fence. Section 3 discusses wildlife

species known to occur in the project area; none of these species were observed at the

project site during the survey conducted specifically for this project. No threatened or

endangered species are known to exist in the area. The project area is approximately one

mile from the POE and the border road along which the fence would be constructed

receives heavy vehicle traffic.

As stated in several places in the EA, no Federally listed flora or fauna threatened or

endangered species were located in the project area during the surveys conducted in

March and April 2002 or during previous surveys conducted in the region (INS 2001;

USACE 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000).

Comment 2: The commenter felt the EA did not adequately address the potential to the

ocelot, jaguar, and jaguarundi.

Response 2: Section 4.6 has been updated to specifically include the ocelot, jaguar, and

jaguarundi. Section 3.6 discusses all three species and the date and location of their last


sightings. These species are not expected to inhabit the project area, or use this area as a

migration corridor due to the proximity to the Naco POE and residential areas.

Comment 3: The commenter expressed a concern that there were potential cumulative

impacts to vegetation and wildlife or uncertainties about effects to the species that were

not sufficiently addressed or supported documentation.

Response 3: The cumulative effects section of the document thoroughly addresses past

and present effects in the area, such as road construction, lighting, fence, and actions by

other agencies. One paragraph in Section 4.12.1 discusses some long-term, indirect

cumulative effects as being unquantifiable. These effects have been defined further as

effects by UDAs, mining, ranching, recreation, urban development, and USBP and INS

activities, and are not only related to INS/USBP projects. Activities of this nature

continuously occur in the areas along the border, especially near POEs. Cumulative

effects expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action alternative have been

addressed in Section 4.12.2 and are concluded to not result in “significant” adverse effects

on vegetation or wildlife, as defined by 40 CFR Section 1508.27.

Comment 4: The commenter would like to see USBP “off-roading, helicopter flights, and

tire-dragging” included in the cumulative effects section, as well as all other USBP and

JTF-6 activities.

Response 4: The use of vehicles off designated roads (by the USBP and civilians),

helicopter flights, and tire-dragging have been added to the cumulative effects section of

the document. USBP and JTF-6 activities in and near the project area are addressed in

the cumulative effects section.

Comment 5: The commenter claims that the EA does adequately address the effects the

fence would allegedly have on human health and safety, particularly since the fence would

force migrants “into desolate and dangerous areas where there is no water or shelter from

the elements.”

Response 5: Migrants attempting to illegally cross the U.S-Mexico border are violating

Federal law. It is not the USBP or INS’s responsibility to “mitigate” for individuals who are


committing a crime. While it is true that immigrants have been known to attempt to illegally

cross the border in desolate areas, this is their choice. The USBP does not force illegal

immigrants into remote areas.

Comment 6: The commenter requested that Executive Order 13045, “Protection of

Children from Environmental Health Risks,” be addressed.

Response 6: EO 13045 has been addressed in Section 4.10.3 Environmental Justice of

this document. As for the health and safety of illegal immigrants trying to cross the border

in remote areas, please refer to the response to the above Comment 5.

6.3.2 Ernest M. Rogers

Comment 1: The commenter stated that USBP and INS “should make every effort to

ensure that the community’s input is included in construction projects.”

Response 1: This comment has been noted. The EA was made available to the public for

a period of 30 days, with an additional 24-day extension. A NOA was published in the local

newspaper (see Appendix A).

Comment 2: The commenter expressed concern that materials for the proposed project

had already been purchased and placed at the proposed site before the public comment

period had closed.

Response 2: The USBP and INS have other on-going projects in the Naco area. The

materials that the commenter referred to had been purchased and will be used for these

projects. Materials for the proposed project have not been purchased.

Comment 3: The commenter stated that they are in favor of the proposed project.

Response 3: This comment has been noted.


6.3.3 Alejandro Jimenez S.

Comment 1: The commenter stated that USBP and INS “should make every effort to

ensure that the community’s input is included in construction projects.”

Response 1: This comment has been noted. The EA was made available to the public for

a period of 30 days, with an additional 24-day extension. A NOA was published in the local

newspaper (see Appendix A).

Comment 2: The commenter expressed concern that materials for the proposed project

had already been purchased and placed at the proposed site before the public comment

period had closed.

Response 2: The USBP and INS have other on-going projects in the Naco area. The

materials that the commenter referred to had been purchased and will be used for these

projects. Materials for the proposed project have not been purchased.

Comment 3: The commenter stated that they are in favor of the proposed project.

Response 3: This comment has been noted.

6.3.4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

On September 13, 2002, Mr. Chris Ingram of Gulf South Research Corporation spoke with

Ms. Thetas Gamberg from the USFWS via telephone.

Comment 1: Ms. Gamberg stated that two listed species’ statuses have changed. The

Chiricahua leopard frog is now listed as threatened and the Gila chub has been changed

from a candidate species to proposed endangered.

Response 1: The new designations have been updated in Table 3-1.

SECTION 7.0REFERENCES


7.0 REFERENCES

Arizona Department of Commerce. 2000. Internet website: http://www.commerce.state.az.us/

Arizona Fish and Game Department (AGFD). 2000. List of Special Status Species for

Cochise County, Arizona. Maintained by the AGFD-Heritage Data Management System. Compiled 19 June 2000.

AGFD. 2001. Last confirmed sightings of the ocelot, jaguar, and jagarundi in southwest

Arizona. Personal communications between Ms. Lori Averill-Murray, AGFD, and Ms. Kate Koske, GSRC, 1 October 2001.

Arizona Mining Association. 2000. Internet website: http://www.azcu.org/ Bat Conservation International. Bat Species: U.S. Bats: Leptonycteris curasoae.

http://www.batcon.org. Accessed 2 October 2001. Bemis, R. Personal Communication. Soil Scientists for the United States Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. June 23, 2000. www.epa.gov/surf3/hucs/15050202/

Bowles, A.E. 1997. Effects of Recreational Noise on Wildlife: An Update. Hubbs-Sea

World Research Institute, San Diego, CA. Brown, D.E. (ed.). 1994. Biotic Communities of the American Southwest-United States

and Mexico. University of Arizona. Brown, D.E. and C.H. Lowe. 1983. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report RM-78. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Dice, L.R. 1943. The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 78 p.

Dye, Lee. 2002. Where the Jaguars Roam…Wild Jaguars Become a Frequent Sight in

Arizona. ABCNEWS.com, 21 February 2002. Accessed 21 February 2002. Hendricks, D.M. 1985. Arizona Soils. College of Agriculture, University of Arizona Press.

Tucson, Arizona. 244 p. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2000. Final Environmental Assessment

For Infrastructure Within U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, Arizona. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C.

INS. 2001. Final Environmental Assessment for Portable Lights within the Naco Corridor,

Cochise County, Arizona. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington D.C.


INS. 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for Road Improvements along King’s Ranch Road and the U.S.-Mexico Border near Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington D.C.

Krausman, P.R., M.C. Wallace, D.W. DeYoung, M.E. Weisenberger, and C.L. Hayes.

1993. The Effects of Low-altitude Jet Aircraft on Desert Ungulates. International Congress: Noise as a Public Health Problem 6:471-478.

Krausman, P.R., M.C. Wallace, D.W. DeYoung, M.E. Weisenberger, and C.L. Hayes.

1998. Effects of Jet Aircraft on Mountain Sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1246-1254.

National Research Council. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact

Statements on Noise. Prepared by the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences. Office of Naval Research, Contract No. N00014. Washington D.C.

Tewes, Dr. Michael. 2001. Last confirmed sightings of the ocelot, jaguar, and jagarundi

in southwest Arizona. Personal communications between Dr. Tewes, Texas A&M-Kingsville, and Ms. Kate Koske, GSRC, October 1, 2001.

University of Arizona. Lesser Long-nosed Bat.

http://ag.arizoan.edu/~shelleyd/LN%20Bats.html. Accessed 29 October 2001. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. Final Environmental Assessment for the

JTF-6, Border Road Maintenance and Repair, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona. USACE, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, California.

USACE. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment for the JTF-6, Border Fence and Road

Repair, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona (JT044-94). USACE, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, California.

USACE. 1996. Final Environmental Assessment for the JTF-6 Road Maintenance and

Construction Naco-Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona (JT315-96). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Fort Worth, Texas.

USACE. 2000. Final Environmental Assessment Joint Task Force Six Proposed Fence

and Road Improvement Project, Naco, Cochise County, Arizona. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Fort Worth, Texas.

USACE. 2001. Relocation and Assessment of Thirty-One Sites along the U.S.-Mexico

International Border between Douglas and Naco, Cochise County, Arizona. U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 2001 Census of Population. American FactFinder.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet. Accessed 2 January 2002 and 28 March 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. AP-42: Compilation of Air

Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 5th Edition.


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Southwest Region Ecological Services. Endangered Species List for Cochise County, Arizona. 26 June 2000. http://ifw2es.fws.gov/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm.

USFWS. 2001. Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species List for Cochise County,

Arizona. 11 October 2001. Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. DeYoung, and E.E. Maughan.

1996. Effects of Simulated Jet Aircraft Noise on Heart Rate and Behavior of Desert Ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:52-61.

Wilson, R. Personal Communication. Soil Scientists for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 23 June 2000. www.epa.gov/surf3/hucs/15050202/.

Workman, G.W., T.D. Bunch, J.W. Call, R.C. Evans, L.S. Neilson, and E.M. Rawlings.

1992. Sonic Boom/Animal Disturbance Studies on Pronghorn Antelope, Rocky Mountain Elk, and Bighorn Sheep. Utah State University Foundation, Logan. Prepared for U.S. Air Force, Hill AFB, Contract F42650-87-C-0349.

SECTION 8.0LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS


8.0 ACRYONYMS ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AO Area of operation BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon monoxide dBA decibel EA Environmental Assessment ESA Endangered Species Act IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act INA Immigration and Nationality Act INS Immigration and Naturalization Service JTF-6 Joint Task Force Six µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter msl mean sea level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NOA Notice of Availability NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide O3 Ozone PM10 Particulate matter measuring less than 10 micrometers PM2.5 Particulate matter measuring less than 2.5 micrometers Pb Lead POE Port of Entry ppm Parts per million ROW Right-of-way RVS Remote Video Surveillance SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 Sulfur dioxide UDA Undocumented Alien USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBP U.S. Border Patrol USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SECTION 9.0LIST OF PREPARERS

9.0

LIS

T O

F P

RE

PA

RE

RS

T

he fo

llow

ing

peop

le w

ere

prim

arily

res

pons

ible

for

prep

arin

g th

is E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t. NA

ME

A

GE

NC

Y/O

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N

D

ISC

IPL

INE

/EX

PE

RT

ISE

E

XP

ER

IEN

CE

R

OL

E IN

PR

EP

AR

ING

EA

Eric

Ver

wer

s

INS

A-E

Res

ourc

e C

ente

r B

iolo

gy

14 y

ears

in N

EP

A a

nd r

elat

ed

stud

ies

Pro

gram

man

ager

and

EA

re

view

and

coo

rdin

atio

n

Cha

rles

Par

sons

IN

S W

este

rn R

egio

n,

Env

ironm

enta

l Offi

cer

Geo

logy

23

yea

rs in

geo

tech

nica

l and

en

viro

nmen

tal s

tudi

es

EA

rev

iew

and

coo

rdin

atio

n

Gilb

ert E

stra

da

U.S

. Bor

der

Pat

rol-T

ucso

n S

ecto

r U

.S. B

orde

r P

atro

l 22

yea

rs e

xper

ienc

e of

US

BP

op

erat

ions

E

A r

evie

w a

nd c

oord

inat

ion

Pat

ienc

e P

atte

rson

U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs,

For

t Wor

th D

istr

ict

Arc

haeo

logy

29

yea

rs P

rofe

ssio

nal

Arc

haeo

logi

st/C

ultu

ral

Res

ourc

e M

anag

er

EA

rev

iew

and

coo

rdin

atio

n

Am

elia

Edw

ards

H

DR

Eng

inee

ring,

Inc.

P

rogr

am M

anag

er /

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Eng

inee

r 11

yea

rs E

ngin

eerin

g an

d P

rogr

am M

anag

emen

t E

A r

evie

w a

nd c

oord

inat

ion

Jim

Mal

usa

Priv

ate

Con

trac

tor

Bot

any

10+

year

s bo

tani

cal s

urve

ys

Fie

ld s

urve

y

Chr

is In

gram

G

ulf S

outh

Res

earc

h C

orpo

ratio

n B

iolo

gy/E

colo

gy

22 y

ears

EA

/EIS

stu

dies

Im

pact

ana

lysi

s an

d E

A

revi

ew; F

ield

sur

vey

Sun

a A

dam

K

naus

G

ulf S

outh

Res

earc

h C

orpo

ratio

n F

ores

try/

Wild

life

14 y

ears

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

EA

rev

iew

Eric

Wor

sham

G

ulf S

outh

Res

earc

h C

orpo

ratio

n B

otan

y 16

yea

rs

bota

ny/N

EP

A/w

etla

nds

stud

ies

EA

pre

para

tion

and

revi

ew

Sha

ron

New

man

G

ulf S

outh

Res

earc

h C

orpo

ratio

n G

IS/g

raph

ics

6 ye

ars

GIS

/gra

phic

s ex

perie

nce

GIS

/gra

phic

s

Kat

e K

oske

R

ouss

el

Gul

f Sou

th R

esea

rch

Cor

pora

tion

For

estr

y/W

ildlif

e 2

year

s in

NE

PA

and

rel

ated

st

udie

s E

A p

repa

ratio

n an

d re

view

; F

ield

sur

vey

Mik

e S

chul

ze

Gul

f Sou

th R

esea

rch

Cor

pora

tion

Wild

life

5 ye

ars

in N

EP

A a

nd r

elat

ed

stud

ies

Fie

ld s

urve

y

Don

na M

arie

B

anks

ton

Gul

f Sou

th R

esea

rch

Cor

pora

tion

For

estr

y 1

year

in N

EP

A a

nd r

elat

ed

stud

ies

Fie

ld s

urve

y


APPENDIX ACORRESPONDENCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ......Final Report 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED This...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ......Final Report 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED This...